Dogfighting, Sports memorabilia and now genetics. - Page 2

Exsubmariner · #11 10-17-2007, 12:30 AM

This guy also knows more about the effects of someone's genetics on their life than you do. Do you see why?

highlife · #12 10-17-2007, 12:30 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there an accurate way of measuring intelligence? No
Have scientists proved the existence of genes responsible for intelligence? No
Do I see why? No

Exsubmariner · #13 10-17-2007, 12:32 AM

I understand that strictly speaking, concluding the premise is a logical fallacy. However, if intelligence is not genetically based, why can't I have a conversation with my cat?

Borodog · #14 10-17-2007, 12:34 AM

The very fact that intelligence (whatever that is) exists demonstrates that it *must* have a genetic basis, or else it could not have evolved.

That does not make it a monolithic or easily measurable, or even definable, thing. But it is a true statement.

highlife · #15 10-17-2007, 12:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
This guy also knows more about the effects of someone's genetics on their life than you do. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This guy is a racist, sexist, homophobic, old windbag. You somehow look up to him. Nice.

Borodog · #16 10-17-2007, 12:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there an accurate way of measuring intelligence? No
Have scientists proved the existence of genes responsible for intelligence? No
Do I see why? No

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly did intelligence evolve if there are no genes governing it?

Exsubmariner · #17 10-17-2007, 12:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The very fact that intelligence (whatever that is) exists demonstrates that it *must* have a genetic basis, or else it could not have evolved.

That does not make it a monolithic or easily measurable, or even definable, thing. But it is a true statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No arguement from me. But, a human being is greater than the sum of his parts, however you choose to quantify those parts. I doubt science will ever be adequate enough to quantify that.

vhawk01 · #18 10-17-2007, 12:39 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What you said.

I agree that the studies of intelligence are woefully crude and lacking. I tend to fall in the camp of the theory of multiple intelligences and think that the IQ test is about as useful as horse dung. But, that's because I have a high enough IQ to recognize that. Still there is also the question of nature and nurture and culture. All of which are too convoluted to contemplate, at the moment.

I am compelled by the idea that there are certain genetic dispositions based on ancestry. Although, the degree to which these theoretical dispositions are muted by environment is a very convoluted question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. If cornered I would basically say that there are very likely some differences in intelligence between white people and black people, white people and asian people, men and women, and so on, but that these differences have almost zero practical application. I would also be willing to lay large odds that anyone who is using those differences to make some kind of grand point is doing it wrong, even though it should be theoretically possible to do it right.

vhawk01 · #19 10-17-2007, 12:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Which assumes that "Intelligence must be primarily genetically based", but provides no proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously true. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there an accurate way of measuring intelligence? No
Have scientists proved the existence of genes responsible for intelligence? No
Do I see why? No

[/ QUOTE ]

What else could possibly cause it? Even environmental causes have to work on SOMETHING, right?

vhawk01 · #20 10-17-2007, 12:41 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The very fact that intelligence (whatever that is) exists demonstrates that it *must* have a genetic basis, or else it could not have evolved.

That does not make it a monolithic or easily measurable, or even definable, thing. But it is a true statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

No arguement from me. But, a human being is greater than the sum of his parts, however you choose to quantify those parts. I doubt science will ever be adequate enough to quantify that.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one ever made a living betting AGAINST scientific discovery, but since I don't plan on locking up any significant sum of money for the next 50 or 60 years I'll let you slide on this one. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]